the shoulder is a joint? gee thanks. so i guess that means the hip is a joint too as well as the wrist. you learn something everyday here.

1hbh is powered by the shoulder. not the back. i guess that explains why you tell everyone to open up on the 1hbh. If you are using the back for power then you are doing it wrong.

power comes from muscle contractions not stretched muscles. you are confusing ssc on the fh with something else. there is ssc on a 1hbh but in much less capacity and just about unnoticeable and occurs mostly in segments of the kinetic chain, if you have one, on a 1hbh and after that a little bit on the forearm if you have good form.

There are different variations of pure Eastern (knuckle on top) depending on the position of the heel pad of the palm.

The "classic"/"textbook" Eastern has the heelpad on the top bevel. This creates the "steak knife" or "pistol" grip.

The Eastern that pros use (including Federer) puts the heelpad somewhere on bevel 8 or even closer to 7, which is more behind the handle. This makes the grip play "extreme" even though the index knuckle is in the same spot. This is called a "hammer" grip by some.

Try this: Put on a normal Eastern grip. Now roll the heel of your palm down (behind the handle) as far as it can go while keeping your index knuckle on top. This will make your all your knuckles line up on the top bevel. Now go hit some balls. It should feel pretty damn extreme, right? That's because it is more extreme even though it is still technically called "Eastern." So I would have no qualms about calling this grip "extreme."

The heelpad is probably more important than the index knuckle in determining how extreme a grip plays. I'm pretty sure Gasquet has his heel down further than Federer.

So a player can change the nature of his Eastern grip simply by changing the heel pad and keeping the index knuckle in the same place. i.e., he can make it more "extreme" even though it is technically still "Eastern".

FYI, in the past they used to have different names for grip depending on where the heelpad was. For some reason, the system became simplified to only looking at the index knuckle. This was a bad overrsimplification.

from the power position (the 1hbh version of padding the dog), the hips open up clockwise. this creates a stretch in the back muscles... the you contract the back muscles, bringing the arm up and across.... during this process you will feel pressure points -

1) on the heel pad because the opening up of the torso is dragging the racket forward

2) on the top 2 sections of the middle and ring fingers because the torso unwind is also pulling the racket up.

this is when you engage the forearm to actively supinate leveraging the above mentioned pressure points.

how do you exactly power it with the shoulder? i think it's called arming the ball.

Click to expand...

The same way you should use the shoulder in the forehand.

And another thing, the TOP of the grip on the 1hbh should be emphasized, Not the bottom. Specifically the knuckle on the top bevel for an eastern grip. A good one hander pulls the buttcap to the ball. You feel this pull
all along on the top bevel from your index finger, down your hand to the buttcap. If you concentrate on the bottom this will lead to tension in the hand wrist which you don't want. Loose grip is better and faster. The supination should be directed/felt along the top bevel. The leading edge, the same way concentration/emphasis is on the 4th bevel etc on a forehand with a semi-western grip.

This is another reason people use the 'pull the sword' analogy because when a samurai pulls the sword out of the sheath they pull from the TOP so that the blade (the bottom of the sword) doesn't scrape against the sheath and stays sharp. The sword is pulled out using the shoulder muscles. Not the back.

There are different variations of pure Eastern (knuckle on top) depending on the position of the heel pad of the palm.

The "classic"/"textbook" Eastern has the heelpad on the top bevel. This creates the "steak knife" or "pistol" grip.

The Eastern that pros use (including Federer) puts the heelpad somewhere on bevel 8 or even closer to 7, which is more behind the handle. This makes the grip play "extreme" even though the index knuckle is in the same spot. This is called a "hammer" grip by some.

Try this: Put on a normal Eastern grip. Now roll the heel of your palm down (behind the handle) as far as it can go while keeping your index knuckle on top. This will make your all your knuckles line up on the top bevel. Now go hit some balls. It should feel pretty damn extreme, right? That's because it is more extreme even though it is still technically called "Eastern." So I would have no qualms about calling this grip "extreme."

The heelpad is probably more important than the index knuckle in determining how extreme a grip plays. I'm pretty sure Gasquet has his heel down further than Federer.

So a player can change the nature of his Eastern grip simply by changing the heel pad and keeping the index knuckle in the same place. i.e., he can make it more "extreme" even though it is technically still "Eastern".

FYI, in the past they used to have different names for grip depending on where the heelpad was. For some reason, the system became simplified to only looking at the index knuckle. This was a bad overrsimplification.

Click to expand...

I know you have been advocating this for a while but I don't agree. most top 1hbh in fact use pistol grip and it doesn't mean the heelpad will be on top bevil. and I don't think it's that important point. the heelpad can be changed slightly depending on situations. but for anyone who wants to involve wrist instead of locking should use pistol grip.

from the power position (the 1hbh version of padding the dog), the hips open up clockwise. this creates a stretch in the back muscles... the you contract the back muscles, bringing the arm up and across.... during this process you will feel pressure points -

1) on the heel pad because the opening up of the torso is dragging the racket forward

2) on the top 2 sections of the middle and ring fingers because the torso unwind is also pulling the racket up.

this is when you engage the forearm to actively supinate leveraging the above mentioned pressure points.

this is how you get to the finish that looks like Dimitrov.

Click to expand...

can't be farther from the truth, IMO. in your opinion do you have a solid 1hbh?

And another thing, the TOP of the grip on the 1hbh should be emphasized, Not the bottom. Specifically the knuckle on the top bevel for an eastern grip. A good one hander pulls the buttcap to the ball. You feel this pull
all along on the top bevel from your index finger, down your hand to the buttcap. If you concentrate on the bottom this will lead to tension in the hand wrist which you don't want. Loose grip is better and faster. The supination should be directed/felt along the top bevel. The leading edge, the same way concentration/emphasis is on the 4th bevel etc on a forehand with a semi-western grip.

This is another reason people use the 'pull the sword' analogy because when a samurai pulls the sword out of the sheath they pull from the TOP so that the blade (the bottom of the sword) doesn't scrape against the sheath and stays sharp. The sword is pulled out using the shoulder muscles. Not the back.

Click to expand...

not making much sense.... maybe there is a disconnect.

supination, racket face wipes windshield clockwise, how do you provide any leverage on the top bevel?

btw - drawing a sword is actually a pretty bad analogy..... this is from the old school and you won't have any leverage on balls above chest unless you flip the racket face on the way up to the ball.

supination, racket face wipes windshield clockwise, how do you provide any leverage on the top bevel?

btw - drawing a sword is actually a pretty bad analogy..... this is from the old school and you won't have any leverage on balls above chest unless you flip the racket face on the way up to the ball.

Click to expand...

I think bringing in the term WW is not good. the wrist simply doesn't move as the mirror image of fh. the racquet head cannot go down as much and the swing path needs to be flatter than fh. it doesn't look like WW. the hand supinates completely within that flat swing path. this path can be tilted for lower balls but still I wouldn't call it WW.

it's not rocket science.... just go out and hit a bunch of chest high balls... this is the height that the old style already has problem with....

but.... if you just try to side-cut the ball with the leading edge as hard as you can, forget about staying sideways, and just uses whatever grip you feel the most comfortable with.... you will find 1hbh is such a breeze to hit.

these debates maybe interesting while watching a couple of chicks playing tennis..... but go trying it out, takes a couple of hitting sessions to get used to...

you will see tremendous increase in spin and control, without sacrificing pace.

supination, racket face wipes windshield clockwise, how do you provide any leverage on the top bevel?

btw - drawing a sword is actually a pretty bad analogy..... this is from the old school and you won't have any leverage on balls above chest unless you flip the racket face on the way up to the ball.

Click to expand...

You don't get much I'll give you that. I guess the fingers tighten on contact just as they do on a forehand. You get leverage by pulling the buttcap towards the ball and then when buttcap passes the ball and comes across. the leverage come there just like in a fh. Like a hammer. To properly hammer a nail you don't drive the head straight down. Well, you can.. but the pros pull on the handle and then pull back (across) and the L shape and the direction change and the angle gives them leverage to pound it in in only a couple of hits instead of hacks who take 10 hits while they tap tap tap in the nail.

drawing the sword is not a bad analogy. You pull out a sword leading by end of the handle. You don't think fed looks like he's drawing a sword here? And look at his shoulder. You don't think he's using it here?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oX7CcDIkMhE

I think bringing in the term WW is not good. the wrist simply doesn't move as the mirror image of fh. the racquet head cannot go down as much and the swing path needs to be flatter than fh. it doesn't look like WW. the hand supinates completely within that flat swing path. this path can be tilted for lower balls but still I wouldn't call it WW.

what I find so confusing about this, is that the one-hander, from a mechanical stand point is much simpler than a two hander.

I suspect that the reason for teaching a two-hander is because of the "instant gratification", and people for the most part are lazy. The perception that picking up something and swinging it with two hands on your non dominant side with two hands VS one is eaiser.

both new guy like dimitrov and old guy like sampras pull the butt.... question is how do you get to a finish like dimitrov's

Click to expand...

dimitrov has a very good 1hbh but his finish look doesn't look quite normal. Unusual flexibility involved somewhere and/or a slight technical problem. even gasquet doesn't go that far. in any case, I don't think a rec should model after his finishing form.

I know you have been advocating this for a while but I don't agree. most top 1hbh in fact use pistol grip and it doesn't mean the heelpad will be on top bevil. and I don't think it's that important point. the heelpad can be changed slightly depending on situations. but for anyone who wants to involve wrist instead of locking should use pistol grip.

Click to expand...

I don't want to spend time defining exactly what a "pistol" since it is often a matter of degree. It's my bad for bringing up the "pistol"; there's no need to reference the index finger when heelpad positioning is a more useful description of grip.

My point is that many people are taught to grip the handle with the heel pad too high. However, doing this makes it harder to hit high balls. This is why all pros with Eastern grips have their heel pad much further back from the top.

That was my main point.

My other point is that the "extremeness" of the grip can by altered by changing heelpad positioning. I can tell you know this, but the guy I was replying to didn't.

I agree that the higher the heelpad is, the easier it is to hit through the ball using supination, so it's a matter of choice/style.

However, I think using a lot of supination on medium-high+ balls is harder to learn (but possible), and therefore we shouldn't advocate it for beginners.

When I was little, actually I'm still technically a kid, I found a one-hander infinitely easier. Whereas ill admit I've never had real faith in my back hand till now, it seems to me the ohbh is less involved. That is after you've got the take back and turn down. Then you just let the racket's weight pull you through the stroke. Hopefully I'm not wrong cause I'm not going to learn a new stroke with finals coming up. Interesting thread

Yes we all know it's supination. Nothing new. I'm pretty sure all the regulars here with a 1hbh are using supination. I"ve been doing that since I was a kid. I just don't end up with the racquet head on my back. Nobody else does either except dimitrov.

I wouldn't recommend him as a model for the 1hbh. Almagro, Stan, haas and even fed are better models to try to emulate.

I am watching Almagro-Ferrer now, and while Al had several flashy DTL BHs (one at 90 mph), overall, many of his BHs are going short, and many of the attempted deeper ones are going long. I see a very clear superiority of control of the 2 hander by Ferrer, including much better net clearance, while Al is skimming the net. I really don't see a future for the 1 hander.

Dimitrov isn't a good model because, like Fed, he straightens his arm late. This is enough of a reason when it comes to beginners/intermediates.

In addition, he uses a lot of upward thrust with his leg, which is tough to time right.

A Dimitrov/Federer stroke is something that should be grown into over the course of years. It's not something that someone should try to learn from scratch.

Click to expand...

that sounds like a matter of preference

Click to expand...

It's not preference. It's just my guess about what method will get kids using a workable 1hbh.

And my guess is that if a kid tries to copy dimitrov from scratch, he will be outperformed by 2-handers, as well as by 1-handers using a more simple model. Consistency will be tough, and so will high balls. Then, competitive pressure and/or frustration will then drive him to the 2hbh.

It's just my guess though. But it makes sense to think simpler is more effective for beginners. They can add other stuff later, which is what usually happens.

If a young kid wants to hit like the pros, he should probably follow the steps the pros took to develop their swing, rather that immediately try to mimic the end product. Learn algebra before calculus.

Federer himself started with much more basic, conventional strokes. Watch this video of Federer playing when he was 16:

I am watching Almagro-Ferrer now, and while Al had several flashy DTL BHs (one at 90 mph), overall, many of his BHs are going short, and many of the attempted deeper ones are going long. I see a very clear superiority of control of the 2 hander by Ferrer, including much better net clearance, while Al is skimming the net. I really don't see a future for the 1 hander.

Click to expand...

I guess your commentary is opposite of everyone on TV and everyone else who watched the match.

both new guy like dimitrov and old guy like sampras pull the butt.... question is how do you get to a finish like dimitrov's

Click to expand...

Flexibility, a lot of racket head speed, solid fundamentals, years of training etc. etc.

Not everybody has the flexibility to hit a forehand like Djokovic either. It's easier to focus on the fundamentals when you're teaching before you get to the advanced stuff. You have to crawl before you walk. From your post's, I can tell you have no idea what the basic fundamentals of a one-handed backhand are.

It's all about personal comfort. And what works best for the individual player, and having a flexible coach that can work with the player and teach in a way that makes sense to them.

Federer has said he couldn't hit a two hander well and it felt awkward and he gravitated towards the one hander. Djokovic started out with a one-hander but later switched to a 2 hander because the one-hander wasn't the shot for him.

Hopefully the coach understands the fundamentals of the one-hander and 2 hander and can teach both.

The coach I took lessons from played D1 and hit a 2 hander in college. He still had the ability to teach me a very sound one-hander when he realized that was the easier more natural shot for me.

If a young kid wants to hit like the pros, he should probably follow the steps the pros took to develop their swing, rather that immediately try to mimic the end product. Learn algebra before calculus.

Click to expand...

That's very true. That's why I see value in all the traditional and conventional teachings. It's much easier to add things on and fine tune from there.

I guess your commentary is opposite of everyone on TV and everyone else who watched the match.

Click to expand...

Everyone is impressed by the flashiness and the 90 mph DTL shots. I saw what really happened. As the match progressed, the BH got shorter and shorter, and gave Ferrer the small chance to start an offensive phase, eventually leading him to dominate. The deeper BHs went in only when backed by utmost confidence - a little nerves and they went long.

Everyone is impressed by the flashiness and the 90 mph DTL shots. I saw what really happened. As the match progressed, the BH got shorter and shorter, and gave Ferrer the small chance to start an offensive phase, eventually leading him to dominate. The deeper BHs went in only when backed by utmost confidence - a little nerves and they went long.

Click to expand...

Wrong, it was the forehand cross court exchanges he was losing, most of the winners and forced errors were generated by his backhand and the bh to bh rallied were dominated by Almagro's superior BH